Paul Chalmers v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2016] HCJAC 27

Note of appeal against conviction:- On 10 June 2015, at Paisley Sheriff Court, the appellant was convicted after trial on indictment of a contravention of section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, namely, having in his possession in a public place without reasonable excuse or lawful authority 2 knives. On 8 July 2015, he was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. The appellant appealed against his conviction on the ground that the trial sheriff misdirected the jury when it came to defining what amounted to an offensive weapon in terms of section 47(4) of the 1995 Act. The trial sheriff had described the knives as “weapons” rather than more neutral terms like “articles” or “items” and it was submitted that the question of whether a particular item was offensive was a matter solely for the jury to determine. On behalf of the Crown it was submitted that there had been no misdirection and the use of the word “weapon” did not hold any particular significance in the context of the directions given and as the items referred to were within the third category it was necessary for the Crown to prove an actual intention to injure and there had been no usurping of the jury’s function. Here the court refused the appeal and stated there had been no misdirection. The court noted that the trial sheriff had made it clear to the jury during the charge that it was necessary for the Crown to establish that it was the appellant’s intention to cause injury to a person. The court considered that it was appropriate for the trial sheriff to describe the items as “weapons” given the circumstances of the appellant running around a public street in the early hours of the morning in possession of two large kitchen knifes and the jury must have been satisfied that it was his intention to cause injury to a person in light of their verdict.